TURNBULL & TURNBULL

In *Turnbull & Turnbull*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine whether a party had breached their duty of care to another by failing to adequately warn of the dangers associated with a particular activity. The dispute arose from an incident where one party allegedly suffered injury due to the other's negligence in providing insufficient safety instructions.

The central legal issue before the Court was the scope of the duty of care owed by a person who undertakes to provide instruction or supervision in a potentially dangerous activity. Specifically, the Court had to consider what constitutes an adequate warning and whether the defendant's actions met this standard, thereby discharging their duty to the plaintiff.

Dunkley J found that the defendant had indeed breached their duty of care. The Court reasoned that a duty to warn extends not only to obvious risks but also to those that are not apparent and could reasonably be foreseen. The defendant's failure to provide specific and comprehensive instructions regarding the inherent risks of the activity, and their reliance on general advice, was deemed insufficient to discharge their legal obligation. The Court applied principles of negligence, focusing on foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct in the circumstances.

The Court ordered that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and the matter was remitted for an assessment of damages.